Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pledging “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”? No, guys, that’s just an illusion. You are really pledging your selfish genes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

A friend writes to advise me of a “vicious” review by Scott Atran of Sam Harris’s latest book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values in the most recent issue of National Interest, which – he tells me – otherwise focuses on foreign and defense policy. Atran, an anthropologist connected with U Michigan, doesn’t like Harris anyway, I gather, because the latter wouldn’t dismiss the effects of laboratory research into telepathy and telekinesis.

Atran, for his own reasons, doesn’t think that “science” is in any position to determine morality.

Harris tells us: “I find reasons for hope” because “moral progress seems to me unmistakable. . . . Consider the degree to which racism in the United States has diminished in the last hundred years.” Yet it was not utilitarianism or science that drove America’s nineteenth-century abolitionist movement, observes Columbia University historian Simon Schama in The American Future, or the twentieth century’s civil-rights movement. It was a religious reckoning against “the national sin.” Secular intellectuals later helped to rouse support for civil rights, but it was the black churches and the inspiration to sustained struggle and sacrifice from preachers like Martin Luther King Jr. and his forebears that began creating a color-blind America, or at least a rainbow with no hard lines.

Recent work by teams of anthropologists, psychologists, political scientists and behavioral economists indicates that every cultural group entertains “sacred” and transcendent values that belie the logic of consequentialism, defying cost-benefit calculations and motivating costly commitments that involve undertaking actions independently of, or all out of proportion to, prospects of success. Thus, taking on the mightiest empire against all odds, the signers of the Declaration of Independence concluded: “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Atran has a point there. Morality always begins with the recognition that one must adhere to values that are not obviously rewarding. That’s what makes evolutionary psychology such a gas factory.

Funny how people who missed such obvious truths in Grade Three would now sit in judgement over the rest of us, in the name of a “science” that pursues swamp gas.

Comments
“Should we remind you of the atrocities of the last century that were done by various Atheist groups?”
Should I remind you of the atrocities of the last couple dozen (or more) centuries that were and are being done by various religious groups?
I think you should. You should just spew it out until you can spew no more. You certainly present as someone that needs to. Go until you foam up and pass out.
What does it take to get you to understand what I’ve said? I’ve said several times that I think that ID of some sort is “possible”. What I dispute is the inference by religious people that “God” did it (or does it), or that it supports religious beliefs.
Firstly, I've understood you all along. You might not realize this, but you've been perfectly clear. You started off by acknowledging the possibility of design in nature, then you began complaining about theists (particularly Christians) who might think highly of ID. Finally, you went apoplectic over the idea that a religious thought might be expressed on this forum. Now you've become indistinguishable from an unbalanced materialist bigot. I assume that's what you are. I also assume that's why you refuse to engage the evidence of design.Upright BiPed
February 26, 2011
February
02
Feb
26
26
2011
12:13 PM
12
12
13
PM
PDT
Like Sam Harris, adorable cherub of the smart set, I too find reasons for hope. Moral progress to me seems unmistakable. Consider the improvement in our culture and its posture toward sex. In the past, sex was kept in its place and expected to be a good little boy and play nice. Well, I’m here to tell you that evolution clearly validates a more liberal stance toward sex. Heck, what I see going on out there is pretty darned close to free love! (Except for the occasional swan, or what ever.) And see how far we have progressed on this moral front since the spirit of St Charles has permeated our culture. No one can doubt that Gaga and Sheen represent a refreshing new wave in sexual morality and portend a bright future for our culture. Or take our healthy modern attitude toward planned parenthood. In those dark, benighted days of yore, beloved by Denyse and other atavists of the cultic order, women were the slaves of their own reproductive organs. If they went out and acted naturally (see above) and found themselves in the family way, they were forced to carry the unwanted protoplasm all the way through to term and actually foist it off upon an overcrowded world. But Nature furnishes many example of mothers eating their own, and in the same way we have made much moral progress through the liberating tool of abortion, by which not only are expectant mothers given control of their own bodies and destiny, but the rest of us can experience a rather pleasant relief from overcrowding and long lones at the mall. These are just two examples of the kinds of moral progress that have me looking toward a brighter future, when hupersonanity has finally thrown off the shackles of religion. No doubt you can think of many others.allanius
February 26, 2011
February
02
Feb
26
26
2011
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Pach, Again, so much could be said, Pach, but since the scriptures do, in fact, tell us to judge (do not condemn is what the the other verse means), and since your other railings make no sense if we are right . . . Let's pick up from the other thread you ran away from. My last post to you was: Pach, you said:
Science can’t make any ‘conclusions’, or at least no credible ones, unless it has the means to observe and/or test things. Your God or any other God isn’t observable, or testable.
This does not correctly address the question. I did not ask if you thought God was observable or testable. I asked, “Why do you think it is OK to rule out, beforehand, any possible conclusions from science, whether those conclusions SUGGEST the existence of God or anything else?” I did not say nor have in mind science concluding God. So would you please answer again.
No possible things should be left out of science IF those things actually are possible and are verifiable (or not) through sound scientific methods.
This shows again that you are not correctly and directly answering what’s being asked. I think the answer is fairly good as far as it goes, but to parse the words in that reply leaves major holes. You said no “things” should be left out of science, but I was not asking about things, rather about conclusions that suggest things. We are leaving the question about whether those things that science may suggest are directly testable or not for later. You then say, “IF those things actually are possible . . .” But we don’t know what is possible until we apply the science to begin with. So, this point is even further from addressing the question. And then, ” . . . and are verifiable (or not) through sound scientific methods.” This goes back to the first point about not correctly addressing the actual question being asked. The conclusions that science suggests need not themselves be verifiable. That is the next step. So, could you address the question again, please?
Why do you want science to verify and substantiate your religious beliefs, or even care if it does?
I don’t. But hey, if science verifies my worldview I’m not gonna be ashamed of sticking that feather in my hat. I don’t care if science substantiates my religious belief. But if my religious belief happens to be true then I expect science to do so. I don’t want or need it to be forced to, however. And a helpful pointer free of charge, Pach. Usually it is helpful to one pointing out other's shortcomings to not engage in those shortcomings themselves, especially while in the act of pointing out said shortcomings. It will only lead to things being said about pots and kettles and the colors they often happen to be.Brent
February 26, 2011
February
02
Feb
26
26
2011
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
Sonfaro @ 10, Thanks for the kind words. Here is a related topic that you might find interesting: At the infamous Dover trial in 2005, Judge John Jones wrote in his final decision that Michael Behe had, during his testimony, finally admitted, to the surprise of everyone, that ID “depends on” religion. When we read Behe’s actual words, however, we find that he didn’t say that at all. Quite the contrary, he said that ID is “consistent with” religion, which is a totally different thing and is in no way controversial or surprising. Even so, Judge Jones, who had already decided how he was going to rule in advance of the testimony [90% of his final ruling on ID was copied from an ACLU brief written in advance of the trial] needed a rationale to make his decision seem reasonable, so he simply twisted Behe’s words and reshaped them until they served the Darwinist agenda. It’s all on the record and I invite anyone to check it out. As you likely know, this is a perennial Darwinist trick--to mislead the public by perverting language and the meanings of words. As a dedicated Darwinist, even a district judge will resort to it, as is clear from the evidence.StephenB
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT
Pach asks; Show me actual, verifiable evidence (without inferences, speculation, guesses, or religious beliefs) that shows that your “God” or any other “God” did it (life) (or does it) and I’ll address that evidence. Well actually the refutation of the hidden variable argument of quantum entanglement falsifies the base materialistic philosophy of 'reductive materialism' which under-girds atheism, At least atheism as it is commonly understood by neo-Darwinists; The Failure Of Local Realism - Materialism - Alain Aspect - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4744145 The falsification for local realism (materialism) was recently greatly strengthened: Physicists close two loopholes while violating local realism - November 2010 Excerpt: The latest test in quantum mechanics provides even stronger support than before for the view that nature violates local realism and is thus in contradiction with a classical worldview. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-physicists-loopholes-violating-local-realism.html And since there are basically only two options on the table for how we got here, Theism or the 'reductive material' account of neo-Darwinists, then that pretty much makes Theism the winner by default of the reductive material hypothesis to successfully explain reality. But to greatly strengthen the case that Theism 'did it' in biology, to use your own words, quantum entanglement, which falsified reductive materialism in the first place, has now been extended into molecular biology, adding a 'deeper', more foundational, level of information to DNA. A deeper level of information that no one really has any real clue to as to exactly what it is doing. Thus by default of materialism to explain quatum entanglement, Theism 'did it' in molecular biology! notes; Quantum Information In DNA & Protein Folding - short video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5936605/ Quantum entanglement holds together life’s blueprint - 2010 Excerpt: “If you didn’t have entanglement, then DNA would have a simple flat structure, and you would never get the twist that seems to be important to the functioning of DNA,” says team member Vlatko Vedral of the University of Oxford. http://neshealthblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/quantum-entanglement-holds-together-lifes-blueprint/ Further notes: The ‘Fourth Dimension’ Of Living Systems https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Gs_qvlM8-7bFwl9rZUB9vS6SZgLH17eOZdT4UbPoy0Y Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH Excerpt: It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate. http://journals.witpress.com/journals.asp?iid=47 Pach, I noticed you have a real aversion to any mention of religious things,,, so do you mean I should not ever share songs like this if I believe in ID? Glory Defined Building 429 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSr96odJJGobornagain77
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
"ID is consistent with religious beliefs, but it does not depend on them. On the other hand, a designed universe is clearly consistent with a created universe." Thank you StephenB. It was the point I wanted to make in the other thread Pach was in, but I was afraid I was being unclear. This is far simpler. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
---"Pachyaena: "You obviously think that morality comes from a belief in God, your God. You’re a Catholic, aren’t you? Why don’t you tell us just one thing that Catholics have done that is good for this world?" The Catholic Church built Western Civilization and launched the modern science enterprise. I can point you to several authors who will attest to that fact. However, you seem to have missed Denyse's point: Darwinism, because of its commitment to change through natural selection, survival mechanisms, and selfish genes, cannot account for self-sacrificial virtues for which there is no cost/benefit payoff. ---"What does it take to get you to understand what I’ve said? I’ve said several times that I think that ID of some sort is “possible”. What I dispute is the inference by religious people that “God” did it (or does it), or that it supports religious beliefs." ID is consistent with religious beliefs, but it does not depend on them. On the other hand, a designed universe is clearly consistent with a created universe. ---"Show me actual, verifiable evidence (without inferences, speculation, guesses, or religious beliefs) that shows that your “God” or any other “God” did it (or does it) and I’ll address that evidence." One cannot prove the existence of God with scientific evidence alone. It requires a combination of philosophical and scientific arguments. I provided the six-step argument on another thread, which you seem to have missed even though it was addressed to you. Would you like for me to repeat it?StephenB
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
06:13 PM
6
06
13
PM
PDT
"What does it take to get you to understand what I’ve said? I’ve said several times that I think that ID of some sort is “possible”. What I dispute is the inference by religious people that “God” did it (or does it), or that it supports religious beliefs." Why? So far your answer has, basically been, Religion is stupid that's why. "There is NO evidence of your God or any other God in ID theory." What evidence do you want? What evidence would convince you? I doubt you'd believe if God appeard beside you right now. You'd rationalize it all away. "Show me actual, verifiable evidence (without inferences, speculation, guesses, or religious beliefs) that shows that your “God” or any other “God” did it (or does it) and I’ll address that evidence." You want us to try and convert you? On a science board? While telling us you don't want us to mention religion? Pach, that doesn't make sense. "IF, and that’s a big if, there’s an intelligent designer of some sort, it’s virtually certain that it’s way beyond the understanding of humans and isn’t some old guy with a beard who sits on a throne somewhere in the sky and helps athletes score touchdowns, and other nonsense." 1.) No Christian/Jew/Muslim older than 8 thinks God is a great bearded man in the sky. I'm not sure who told you thats what we thought. It's wrong. God has always been beyond our perception. 2.) God, typically, doesn't care for/about athletic games unless it furthers his purpose. I get annoyed with football players who say God did it too. Come on man. UB asked you to address the evidence for Design. Either do or don't. Quite making excuses about religion and investigate for yourself. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
"Atheism isn’t the cause of evil either but that sure doesn’t stop anyone who’s religious from constantly denigrating all atheists." Did I? If I have I'm sorry. I don't think I did, but If I had I would be in error. The problem Pach is you made a sweeping statement on the catholic faith (which I'm not even a part of). My response was to show you that the same accusations you're making can be made to your own beliefs, in the hopes that you'll see it's not the beliefs you need to hold accountable, but the individuals responsible. "Yes, people in general are a hateful, unruly bunch, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof." So why even bring up religion if you know it isn't soley responsible? Heck, religion wasn't even brought up in the article! All it said was science can't determine morality. "Religion is just an excuse to get away with rotten behavior." No. It isn't. Religion is a set of belifs and laws created to stop rotten behavior. If Christians are acting rotten then they aren't being Christians. "I’m sick and tired of seeing atheists (and others) being denigrated by religious people just because their beliefs (or lack thereof) aren’t exactly the same as those of the religious people. You should all practice what you preach and stop bashing atheists or anyone else who doesn’t or may not adhere to your particular religious beliefs." Yours was the first post in this thread. No one bashed atheists in this thread till you got here. Heck, they didn't afterwards. They bashed you personally (and Ray I guess). "Are any of you familiar with this: “Judge not lest ye be judged.”?" Very familiar. I try to live by it. If I have failed by that today I'm sorry. "If you’re a Christian, you should STOP judging people, whether they’re atheists or not, or whether they’re Christians or not. This site says: “Serving the Intelligent Design Community” To be honest and accurate it should say: ‘Serving the self-righteous religious (especially Christian) community that constantly bashes atheists from behind the guise of ID *science*.’ " Dude, what does any of this have to do with the article? Like it or not, hard-atheists are usually the ones who are against ID completely, so they're usually the ones that are targeted. Should we lump them all together as bad people? No. "This site is really no different from Pharyngula or Panda’s Thumb, except that those other sites have a lot of four-lettered words on them. Still, this site and the others are not really about the ‘science’. They’re all about bashing people with different beliefs." Have 'I' bashed you Pach? And if so when? No matter what you've posted, no matter how outrageously bigoted - and it has been terribly bigoted Pach, I'm sorry - I've tried to regard you with respect. But everytime you post something like this you make it harder and harder man. "Should I remind you of the atrocities of the last couple dozen (or more) centuries that were and are being done by various religious groups?" I know them very well, they make me sick to my stomach to see someone take a force for good and twist it for evil purposes. The point was RELIGION HASN'T BEEN THE ONLY FORCE OF PAIN IN THE WORLD. I cannot stress this enough. "Are you religious people suggesting that an atheist, or agnostic person, or someone who just doesn’t believe the way you do, has done NO good in the world?" No. I'm not. I have several materialistic friends. I love 'em to death. There nice people. Today's a birthday for one of them actually. "You religion-ists obviously want me and others to be splitters, not lumpers, when it comes to religious people, even though religious people constantly lump everyone who doesn’t agree with them into one pile." Pach, you're doing this right now man. "Even the Bible does that. You either worship God and believe in all the fairy tales or you will burn in Hell forever (and other horrors)." What 'other horrors?' Have you actually read the bible? Or has someone showed you text out of context? "At least atheists and agnostics and probably even some religions don’t threaten anyone with eternal damnation just because they don’t adhere to the same beliefs." No, but they do say that we're all unintelligent, hateful, divisive morons. Several (not all) think that if we were wiped off the planet the world would be a utopia. Have you watched 'Religilous'? Anti-theist Bill Maher practically said "Religion must die for man to live". As for hell, no ones forcing you to believe in it. "What’s “good” about brainwashing, scaring, and controlling people with threats like that?" First, if anyone is preaching Hellfire and damnation, then they're in the wrong from the get go IMO. I told you this saying before, and it still holds true: "God has not given us the spirit of fear." If someone's come up to you and told you 'you're going to hell' ask them if that's something Jesus would have said out loud. It's the height of rudeness IMO. "If this site really wants to serve the ID “community”, and IF that community’s desire is to have ID thought of and accepted as a scientific theory, then ALL the religious stuff has to be left out and that includes bringing up atheism or atheists in any way." We've already been over this. You're asking religious people to give up their religious beliefs for people who wouldn't change their minds regardless. It's useless Pach. Judge the science, stop bringing up religion just to pick a fight. "As long as religious beliefs of any kind are brought up when writing or speaking about ID, the so-called “ID Community” will be thought of as a religious community." By you. But you already made up your mind. I don't know what religion did to you personally. But hates got you all wound up about it. I'm sorry for whatever made you so bitter, but it can't be healthy. I'll pray for you man, 'cause at this point it's all I can do. I hope you find a measure of peace. - Sonfaro (Anyone: If I've written something out of context or too harshly please correct me. I'm very frustrated and I'm trying my best.)Sonfaro
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
UprightBiped said: "Still unwilling to address the evidence of design too I see." What does it take to get you to understand what I've said? I've said several times that I think that ID of some sort is "possible". What I dispute is the inference by religious people that "God" did it (or does it), or that it supports religious beliefs. There is NO evidence of your God or any other God in ID theory. Show me actual, verifiable evidence (without inferences, speculation, guesses, or religious beliefs) that shows that your "God" or any other "God" did it (or does it) and I'll address that evidence. IF, and that's a big if, there's an intelligent designer of some sort, it's virtually certain that it's way beyond the understanding of humans and isn't some old guy with a beard who sits on a throne somewhere in the sky and helps athletes score touchdowns, and other nonsense.Pachyaena
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
Sonfaro said: "Religion isn’t the cause of evil Pach. Wake up dude. You’re brainwashed. PEOPLE in general are an unruly hateful bunch. Tie individual sin to the individual, not the group as a whole." Atheism isn't the cause of evil either but that sure doesn't stop anyone who's religious from constantly denigrating all atheists. Yes, people in general are a hateful, unruly bunch, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Religion is just an excuse to get away with rotten behavior. I'm sick and tired of seeing atheists (and others) being denigrated by religious people just because their beliefs (or lack thereof) aren't exactly the same as those of the religious people. You should all practice what you preach and stop bashing atheists or anyone else who doesn't or may not adhere to your particular religious beliefs. Are any of you familiar with this: "Judge not lest ye be judged."? If you're a Christian, you should STOP judging people, whether they're atheists or not, or whether they're Christians or not. This site says: "Serving the Intelligent Design Community" To be honest and accurate it should say: 'Serving the self-righteous religious (especially Christian) community that constantly bashes atheists from behind the guise of ID *science*.' This site is really no different from Pharyngula or Panda's Thumb, except that those other sites have a lot of four-lettered words on them. Still, this site and the others are not really about the 'science'. They're all about bashing people with different beliefs. You asked: "Should we remind you of the atrocities of the last century that were done by various Atheist groups?" Should I remind you of the atrocities of the last couple dozen (or more) centuries that were and are being done by various religious groups? You asked: "Are you suggesting that a catholic person has done NO good in the world?" Are you religious people suggesting that an atheist, or agnostic person, or someone who just doesn't believe the way you do, has done NO good in the world? You religion-ists obviously want me and others to be splitters, not lumpers, when it comes to religious people, even though religious people constantly lump everyone who doesn't agree with them into one pile. Even the Bible does that. You either worship God and believe in all the fairy tales or you will burn in Hell forever (and other horrors). At least atheists and agnostics and probably even some religions don't threaten anyone with eternal damnation just because they don't adhere to the same beliefs. What's "good" about brainwashing, scaring, and controlling people with threats like that? If this site really wants to serve the ID "community", and IF that community's desire is to have ID thought of and accepted as a scientific theory, then ALL the religious stuff has to be left out and that includes bringing up atheism or atheists in any way. As long as religious beliefs of any kind are brought up when writing or speaking about ID, the so-called "ID Community" will be thought of as a religious community.Pachyaena
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Pach... *facepalm* "Why don’t you tell us just one thing that Catholics have done that is good for this world?" Are you suggesting that a catholic person has done NO good in the world? Seriously? Dude, whoever sucked you in has you real good. Should we remind you of the atrocities of the last century that were done by various Atheist groups? Soviet Russia? The Khmer Rouge? Chairman Mao? Religion isn't the cause of evil Pach. Wake up dude. You're brainwashed. PEOPLE in general are an unruly hateful bunch. Tie individual sin to the individual, not the group as a whole. "Instead of being such a pompous windbag, maybe you should be working at cleaning up the Catholic Church and every other religion that needs it, which would likely be all of them." SMH. Sheesh, don't know why I thought you were respectable. - SonfaroSonfaro
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
Still venting your spleen, eh Pachy? Still unwilling to address the evidence of design too I see. I noticed that Ray "Egregious Error of Stupendous Ignorance" Martinez has been on UD lately. Perhaps UD should set up a thread for the two of you to have at it. Those of us with a still-functioniong inner ear can sit back and watch. I'll get the popcorn.Upright BiPed
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
Pach: Re: Why don’t you tell us just one thing that Catholics have done that is good for this world? Maybe you should start with destroying many cultures and continue with child molestation, lying, waging wars, wasting massive amounts of money on fancy churches, fancy robes, etc., etc., etc. You have committed, utterly indefensible outrageous, inexcusable slander and reveal a shocking bigotry (and utter ignorance) above. Please, apologise. I think I could start by pointing out that the modern university, the hospital, and many other positive contributions to our civilisation came out of the work of the Catholic church. [And, I say this as a convinced protestant.] I could call names such as Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and ever so many others; including Jamaica's Father Richard Ho Lung or the Mahfood's Food for the Poor initiative. For shame! As to the issue of grounding morality, you perhaps do not understand the point that evolutionary materialism has in it no worldview foundational IS capable of grounding OUGHT. That is it is inescapably amoral, and radically relativistic, which boils down to might and manipulation make "right." If you doubt me on this, look at Plato's analysis in his The Laws, Bk X, c. 360 BC, here. Then, look at William Provine's claims in his notorious 1998 Darwin Day address at UT:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . . . Without free will, justification for revenge disappears and rehabilitation is the main job of judicial systems and prisons. [[NB: As C. S Lewis warned, in the end, this means: reprogramming through new conditioning determined by the power groups controlling the society and its prisons.] We will all live in a better society when the myth of free will is dispelled . . . . [Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract).]
In fact, he is utterly wrong, for if many are manipulated into thinking they have no freedom to be responsible, moral and virtuous, then chaos follows, as Plato showed. What a contrast do we find in Locke as he cited Hooker in his 2nd Essay on Civil Govt, to ground liberty, justice and morality in the community:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature [by mutual creation in the Image of God], as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Could you be any more self-righteous and hypocritical? The arrogance in all your writing is downright nauseating. You obviously think that morality comes from a belief in God, your God. You're a Catholic, aren't you? Why don't you tell us just one thing that Catholics have done that is good for this world? Maybe you should start with destroying many cultures and continue with child molestation, lying, waging wars, wasting massive amounts of money on fancy churches, fancy robes, etc., etc., etc. Instead of being such a pompous windbag, maybe you should be working at cleaning up the Catholic Church and every other religion that needs it, which would likely be all of them.Pachyaena
February 25, 2011
February
02
Feb
25
25
2011
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply